Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2015 20:59:49 GMT -5
So here is the chain. You claimed: ... Many feminist doctrines are hypocritical and hopelessly self-conflicted. ... She said they weren't. ... Feminist doctrines are not hypocritical. Actually where are the doctrines written up? ... But also seemed to not know which doctrines you meant. So I suggested: ... "I am not sure what 'doctrines' you are referring to here. Would you please give me a link so that I can assess them. I can then knowledgeably discuss how they are either not hypocritical or not feminist doctrines. Or I see some of the hypocrisy you see." ... She responded: Exactly So I see us at the point where you could present feminist doctrine you see as hypocritical and she could read it and address it. I suppose we could start with the books mentioned by the PT article, and the articles posted by the feminist authors in the PIV rape thread. Ayn Rand also immediately comes to mind as a prominent feminist author whose views I doubt later would approve of. Regardless, what I'm saying is that I don't see the purpose of posting the links when her stated intent is to give us her assessment of whether they're feminist or not. For that to be a useful exercise, I would have to have some logical reason to care what she thinks is feminist or not. That's what we're trying to establish now.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2015 21:03:56 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
Late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
Third-wave feminism
In the early 1990s in the USA, third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave and to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave. Third-wave feminism distinguished itself from the second wave around issues of sexuality, challenging female heterosexuality and celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment.[60] Third-wave feminism also seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which, they argue, over-emphasize the experiences of upper middle-class white women. Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for women, and tend to use a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality.[26][61][62][63] Feminist leaders rooted in the second wave, such as Gloria Anzaldúa, bell hooks, Chela Sandoval, Cherríe Moraga, Audre Lorde, Maxine Hong Kingston, and many other non-white feminists, sought to negotiate a space within feminist thought for consideration of race-related subjectivities.[62][64][65] Third-wave feminism also contains internal debates between difference feminists, who believe that there are important differences between the sexes, and those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning.[66]
political movements
Some branches of feminism closely track the political leanings of the larger society, such as liberalism and conservatism, or focus on the environment. Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society. Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary.[8] Conservative feminism is conservative relative to the society in which it resides. Libertarian feminism conceives of people as self-owners and therefore as entitled to freedom from coercive interference.[82] Separatist feminism does not support heterosexual relationships. Lesbian feminism is thus closely related. Other feminists criticize separatist feminism as sexist.[10] Ecofeminists see men's control of land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment; ecofeminism has been criticised for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature.[83]
Not surprisingly the penetrative sex thing does not appear to have made it into Wikipedia as mainstream feminist thought.
That must mean it isn't a feminist doctrine. Also, what about the above suggests that contemporary feminism isn't precisely how I've characterized it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 21:05:32 GMT -5
Your right, that is what we have been dragged into talking about. My bad, I got sucked into the diversion. Every time I bring up a feminist view that you can't call outright ridiculous you pull out claims that neither I or anyone else in this discussion have said and put us in the position of defending ourselves. I'm done talking to you now.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 7, 2015 21:15:22 GMT -5
Yeah, about the bible... not actually originally written by Greek authors correct? Translations are often not quite exact in going from one language to the next. Things are going to be missed going from Hebrew to Greek to English.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament..
There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have less than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn't guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text. Regarding genre, the Gospels are usually taken today to be examples of Roman biographies."[5]
Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars.[6] When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) which is more than there are words in the New Testament. This is less significant than may appear since it is a comparison across linguistic boundaries. More important estimates focus on comparing texts within languages. Those variations are considerably fewer. The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated.[7
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 21:16:16 GMT -5
Feminism does include all the views listed in Optimist's post. I guess what I am thinking of when I say feminism is the root that the vast majority of women that identify as feminist share, and that is the belief that all people should have equal rights and equal opportunity. We do debate how to get there, but the goal is the same.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 7, 2015 21:22:58 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
Late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
Third-wave feminism
In the early 1990s in the USA, third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave and to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave. Third-wave feminism distinguished itself from the second wave around issues of sexuality, challenging female heterosexuality and celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment.[60] Third-wave feminism also seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which, they argue, over-emphasize the experiences of upper middle-class white women. Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for women, and tend to use a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality.[26][61][62][63] Feminist leaders rooted in the second wave, such as Gloria Anzaldúa, bell hooks, Chela Sandoval, Cherríe Moraga, Audre Lorde, Maxine Hong Kingston, and many other non-white feminists, sought to negotiate a space within feminist thought for consideration of race-related subjectivities.[62][64][65] Third-wave feminism also contains internal debates between difference feminists, who believe that there are important differences between the sexes, and those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning.[66]
political movements
Some branches of feminism closely track the political leanings of the larger society, such as liberalism and conservatism, or focus on the environment. Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society. Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary.[8] Conservative feminism is conservative relative to the society in which it resides. Libertarian feminism conceives of people as self-owners and therefore as entitled to freedom from coercive interference.[82] Separatist feminism does not support heterosexual relationships. Lesbian feminism is thus closely related. Other feminists criticize separatist feminism as sexist.[10] Ecofeminists see men's control of land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment; ecofeminism has been criticised for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature.[83]
Not surprisingly the penetrative sex thing does not appear to have made it into Wikipedia as mainstream feminist thought.
That must mean it isn't a feminist doctrine. Also, what about the above suggests that contemporary feminism isn't precisely how I've characterized it? Well from #124 there are a couple things-
"Many are misandry masquerading as social justice. Many are obsessive about sex to the point of absurdity (which you well know, since you were a participant in the penetrative sex = rape thread). Many feminists clearly don't care about practical/justifiable reasons for wage disparity between the sexes."
Using the word many implies it is a majority view of feminism versus maybe just one political offshoot or a minority view.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 7, 2015 21:31:10 GMT -5
... Regardless, what I'm saying is that I don't see the purpose of posting the links when her stated intent is to give us her assessment of whether they're feminist or not. ... She said feminist doctrine is not hypocritical. Then she asked what feminist doctrine. I just thought you might provide her with an example of what you consider hypocritical feminist doctrine. That would give her the opportunity to respond to something specific instead of "I don't know what you are referencing but here is my opinion on it." I offered the possibility that what you cited was hypocritical but wasn't actually feminist doctrine as one option to not say you are correct.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2015 22:36:02 GMT -5
Yeah, about the bible... not actually originally written by Greek authors correct? Translations are often not quite exact in going from one language to the next. Things are going to be missed going from Hebrew to Greek to English.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament..
There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have less than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn't guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text. Regarding genre, the Gospels are usually taken today to be examples of Roman biographies."[5]
Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars.[6] When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) which is more than there are words in the New Testament. This is less significant than may appear since it is a comparison across linguistic boundaries. More important estimates focus on comparing texts within languages. Those variations are considerably fewer. The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated.[7
The original texts were written in Greek. Some evidence suggests portions were originally written in Aramaic, which is why consulting the Aramaic manuscripts to verify agreement is also profitable. As much fun as a discussion of Biblical hermeneutics would be, it's a vast topic and it bears only the scantest relevance to this thread. Enough of these forays to nowhere. Can you answer my question or not?
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Feb 7, 2015 22:37:20 GMT -5
When the feminist chest-thumpers roar, I get angry - I'm all for equal rights whether it be race, gender, sexual preference or religion. What I can't stand are hostile people trying to push their agenda, who do more of a disservice for their cause than good.
Ever hear of Martha McWhirter? She's who I envision when I read many posts here:dchrisman.weebly.com/mcwhirters-feminism.html
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2015 22:54:45 GMT -5
... Regardless, what I'm saying is that I don't see the purpose of posting the links when her stated intent is to give us her assessment of whether they're feminist or not. ... She said feminist doctrine is not hypocritical. Then she asked what feminist doctrine. I just thought you might provide her with an example of what you consider hypocritical feminist doctrine. That would give her the opportunity to respond to something specific instead of "I don't know what you are referencing but here is my opinion on it." I offered the possibility that what you cited was hypocritical but wasn't actually feminist doctrine as one option to not say you are correct. Pretty much anything written by Amanda Hess (not to be confused with Dr. Amanda Hess) qualifies. You might also try this video for a more exhaustive list.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 8, 2015 0:33:16 GMT -5
www.feministcritics.orgI really like their moderation. It's easier for me to read, because there's a lot less venom than I get in the comments sections on other gender issues blogs or websites.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 14:02:28 GMT -5
No it doesn't. You're whole post is a wonderful example of the attitude that I am talking about. You start with whining that I'm going to talk about someone else's problems instead of men's, then proceeds to say that you have a woman doctor so obviously there is no problem anymore and rounds the whole thing off with saying that I am the one causing the problem. If you want to talk about the challenges facing men go ahead. Stop insisting I do it when I am trying to discuss the challenges facing women.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 14:39:40 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion I read the Amanda Hess link. I don't know what point you are trying to make with it. I tried to watch the video and stopped after a minute. I'm not sitting through that.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 8, 2015 16:21:55 GMT -5
I can prove that the Westboro baptists doctrines are not scriptural, their practices are not the practices of Christ, and their laws are not the law of the Bible. God has given me a mind with which to reason, assess, compare, and make logical determinations. You, nor laterbloomer, nor anyone else besides can unilaterally exclude any doctrine or set of doctrine from the feminist rubric because as laterbloomer herself points out, there is no such rubric. While I can't prevent Fred Phelps from calling what he does "Christianity", I can easily demonstrate how his doctrines do not comport with scripture given a sound, logical, and exhaustive analysis. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to narrowly define "Christianity" as the teachings of Jesus Christ and his disciples. When it comes to feminism, what have you got? "I don't think that's really what feminism is."? "She claims to be a feminist author, but she isn't really because I don't like what she has to say." Where is your core doctrine? Where is the evidence that this and this alone is indeed befitting of the label "feminism"? My core doctrine is not that important per this discussion. Irregardless what you have posted and those who see every discussion by women about women's issues as man-hating, the dictionary definition remains:
Definition of feminism in English: noun [mass noun]
The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism
So, if it is about being superior to men, it is not feminism. If it is about hating men, it is not feminism.
There are many things that people ASSume are feminism, but are more correctly seen as gender studies, personal beliefs or opinions of a group of women. For example, 'PIV is rape' is not feminism because it does not advocate a right men have, that women want to have. It is an opinion of some people.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2015 16:51:30 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion I read the Amanda Hess link. I don't know what point you are trying to make with it. I tried to watch the video and stopped after a minute. I'm not sitting through that. I was giving Billis some examples of hypocritical feminist doctrines. I take it that neither you nor Optimist has any further interest in responding to my general question from Replies #159 and #164, i.e. why should we consider your "all people should have equal rights and equal opportunity" (and nothing else besides) view of feminism authoritative? Wikipedia obviously doesn't agree with you, since it presents a litany of feminist doctrines that you've rejected as true feminism. The thousands (millions?) of feminist authors/bloggers/ideologues out there who self-identify as feminist obviously don't agree with you. Ms. Hess, Dr. Kanazawa, Dr. Pinker et al. obviously don't agree with you. Optimist has argued that a doctrine can't be considered feminist unless it's embraced by the majority of self-identifying feminists. Since I can't prove that the majority of feminists espouse the contentious doctrines mentioned in this thread, I can't rightly claim they're "feminist". Is this your position too? That feminism is nothing more than a warm fuzzy feeling inside that women are just as good as men and should be so accorded, and any more specific doctrine, branch, etc. (such as the dozens listed in the Wiki article) aren't really feminism because none of them provably enjoy majority adoption? If that's so and you have nothing more authoritative to back it up, best of luck to you in your attempts to win converts to your definition. You'll be the feminist equivalent of the United Church. For my own part, I can go around now earnestly claiming that I'm a feminist. I consider women to be just as good as men and hold that they should be so accorded. I believe in different gender roles, but that's one of those minority non-feminist doctrines we can apparently ignore. Hence Virgil the feminist it is. What curious insights one can gain from these discussions.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2015 17:02:23 GMT -5
I can prove that the Westboro baptists doctrines are not scriptural, their practices are not the practices of Christ, and their laws are not the law of the Bible. God has given me a mind with which to reason, assess, compare, and make logical determinations. You, nor laterbloomer, nor anyone else besides can unilaterally exclude any doctrine or set of doctrine from the feminist rubric because as laterbloomer herself points out, there is no such rubric. While I can't prevent Fred Phelps from calling what he does "Christianity", I can easily demonstrate how his doctrines do not comport with scripture given a sound, logical, and exhaustive analysis. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to narrowly define "Christianity" as the teachings of Jesus Christ and his disciples. When it comes to feminism, what have you got? "I don't think that's really what feminism is."? "She claims to be a feminist author, but she isn't really because I don't like what she has to say." Where is your core doctrine? Where is the evidence that this and this alone is indeed befitting of the label "feminism"? My core doctrine is not that important per this discussion. Irregardless what you have posted and those who see every discussion by women about women's issues as man-hating, the dictionary definition remains:
Definition of feminism in English: noun [mass noun]
The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism
So, if it is about being superior to men, it is not feminism. If it is about hating men, it is not feminism.
There are many things that people ASSume are feminism, but are more correctly seen as gender studies, personal beliefs or opinions of a group of women. For example, 'PIV is rape' is not feminism because it does not advocate a right men have, that women want to have. It is an opinion of some people.
The dictionary definition is generalized to the point of being useless, which is why we're having this debate. The "PIV = rape" feminists believe that PIV sex is a social construct used by men to suppress women's rights. Ergo it is antithetical to equality. Ergo condemning it meets the dictionary definition of feminism. Certainly most feminists don't identify as misandrists, but many feminist doctrines whose stated objective is to bring about gender equality are in fact blatantly misandric (see "feminist hypocrisy" video posted earlier for a synopsis). Ergo the fruits of feminism can indeed be misandry. The Wikipedia article goes so far as to define branches of third-wave feminism where misandric doctrines are core. Yes, all of this is based on opinion. What you and laterbloomer have failed to do is demonstrate why your opinion is any more valid than mine, Ms. Hess', or the man next door's. Mine at least comports with the reality of what one finds when one searches for "feminism" on the Internet and digests the results.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 17:11:03 GMT -5
I have not rejected anything as true feminism. As a matter of fact I have clarified what I am trying to say as the points on which all feminists agree. I have agreed that some feminists go to extremes that I don't agree with but refuse to stop calling myself a feminist because of them.
Where did Miss Hess say anything? She wrote a play that isn't to my taste but I don't see that she was saying anything you would find objectionable, at least in the link you provided.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 8, 2015 17:48:25 GMT -5
My core doctrine is not that important per this discussion. Irregardless what you have posted and those who see every discussion by women about women's issues as man-hating, the dictionary definition remains:
Definition of feminism in English: noun [mass noun]
The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism
So, if it is about being superior to men, it is not feminism. If it is about hating men, it is not feminism.
There are many things that people ASSume are feminism, but are more correctly seen as gender studies, personal beliefs or opinions of a group of women. For example, 'PIV is rape' is not feminism because it does not advocate a right men have, that women want to have. It is an opinion of some people.
The dictionary definition is generalized to the point of being useless, which is why we're having this debate. The "PIV = rape" feminists believe that PIV sex is a social construct used by men to suppress women's rights. Ergo it is antithetical to equality. Ergo condemning it meets the dictionary definition of feminism. Certainly most feminists don't identify as misandrists, but many feminist doctrines whose stated objective is to bring about gender equality are in fact blatantly misandric (see "feminist hypocrisy" video posted earlier for a synopsis). Ergo the fruits of feminism can indeed be misandry. The Wikipedia article goes so far as to define branches of third-wave feminism where misandric doctrines are core. Yes, all of this is based on opinion. What you and laterbloomer have failed to do is demonstrate why your opinion is any more valid than mine, Ms. Hess', or the man next door's. Mine at least comports with the reality of what one finds when one searches for "feminism" on the Internet and digests the results. Remember the old saw about don't believe what you read on the internet? Westboro Baptists come up if I search on Baptists and there are even bible verses, correct or not on their web-site.
Dictionaries are in the business of definitions, so I prefer to go with their definition. Its far more authoritative than saying I found it on the internet under this search term as an example of correctness or value.
"The "PIV = rape" feminists believe that PIV sex is a social construct used by men to suppress women's rights. Ergo it is antithetical to equality." Belief does not make it so. All of us on the planet are pretty much aware that until medical technology came along PIV was the only way the human race reproduced. Its not a social construct, it is one way one can choose to have sex and possibly reproduce.
I think feminism the definition is confused with what has been thrown under the umbrella is some folks opinions of feminism as various movements and even various waves. Its like confusing what is civil rights and what was under the umbrella of the civil rights movement. For example, it is not necessary to become a Muslim and change your name in order to get civil rights. However, that was part of a belief system some advocating for civil rights and other crap too, chose to believe. PIV, misandry and other crap IMO are similar herrings.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 8, 2015 18:45:07 GMT -5
I would like to live in a perfect world where the most qualified person always got the job, the best worker got the highest pay, no one ever got raped, no one ever got divorced but if by chance they did both parents took financial, physical and emotional responsibility for their children etc etc etc But I live in a world where these things are still skewed against women. For this reason I am unashamedly a feminist. And I am not going to be diverted from the injustices perpetrated on thousands, if not millions of women for the problems of tens or hundreds of men. It is ridiculous that every time an injustice against women is mentioned someone jumps up and says "but men have this problem!" Guess where the discussion goes to from there. Labeling me a "Radical Feminist" to ridicule my stand on these things just reinforces my resolve to keep speaking out against misogyny in any form I find it. I think we would all like to live in a perfect world, both men and women. But it's good that you're taking up the cause for the injustices perpetrated on thousands, if not millions of women...for the problems of tens or hundreds of men.
Here's where I disagree with your argument, the biggest thing is that it's so inflammatory! It reads so much like "throw them in the river, and if they drown they're innocent and if they swim they're guilty so we'll burn them at the stake!" Nobody has labelled you as a "radical feminist" - at least that I've seen - so that's something that you've put on yourself in order to draw more attention to yourself. If you want to be a radical ~anything~ you can be, that's your choice. But your post comes off like "here's my opinion, and you can disagree but if you do you're a woman-hater!" Holy crap dude! That's not a really good way to start a realistic conversation. Like one where other people see your viewpoint and learn something from it I mean.
Your facts are so vague..."injustices perpetrated on thousands, if not millions of women"....maybe it's billions! Who knows! If we're just making shit up, lets say trillions! But that's from the "problems of tens or hundreds of men"... really? There's a lot more than ten or a hundred bad men in the world...and there's some bad women in the world too. I don't think evil behavior knows a particular gender, some people are just fucked up in the head and have enough power to do some pretty bad stuff to other people. Historically that's been more men than women, but the women have been just as ruthless and evil as the men. So your complaint is really about powerful people who did these horrible acts, not necessarily men...but history has played out that it's been more men. If I understand you correctly?
You know what, there's a lot of very competent women doing highly skilled jobs, and your post sets them back more than any man ever could! What I'm saying is, I go to have surgery on my knee and it's a woman doing the operation. We go and meet and she says all the things that are going to happen during the surgery, and we set a date and she does the surgery and that's that. There's really no reason to bring up the surgeon's gender during any time of all this taking place! You're the one bringing it up and making it into something it wasn't - to the patient it was just a knee surgery and they didn't care either way whether a woman or a man did it!
At the end of the day, I can only speak for myself though. Maybe there are a lot of men out there who don't want knee surgery done by a woman...if that's the case then it's really foolish to think that way. There are some issues between the genders that are quantifiable, like the pay gap for instance. That's a bad thing in my opinion, and we should work towards correcting it. But I'm not going to apologize for atrocities committed by tens or hundreds of men against thousands or millions of women, because I haven't committed them. Just like I wouldn't apologize for the holocaust...I wasn't a part of it, why would I apologize for something that happened 30 years before I was born! I won't apologize for slavery, sure I'm a white male but that happened 200 years before I was born! It was deplorable, but I had no part in it...if you want men to apologize for what other men did, then women need to apologize for "Bloody Mary" and Isabella of Spain.
You just paint people - men - with such a broad stroke. I haven't done a poll or anything, but from what I've seen most of us support our wives and want them to be successful and happy. Your post was really insulting.
The jist of what she wrote is I want to speak about women's issues and not get redirected into men's issues. And you brilliantly proved her point by using her quote as a jumping off point to decide it was about "bad men" and all sorts of unrelated stuff.
Now I could be wrong, I think "for the problems of tens or hundreds of men" is unintentionally inflammatory and was meant to contrast how women are treated all over the globe with the fact men generally have more rights globally than women do. Perhaps Later will clarify. I read it totally different than you did.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 19:03:10 GMT -5
You're right on the money Opti. You got exactly what I meant.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 8, 2015 19:29:54 GMT -5
I actually hate the idea of "true feminist".
It's kind of like "real Christian". REAL Christians don't do X, Y, Z thing I find horrible!
There are people who are real Christians who are for/against gay marriage.
There are people who are feminists who are for/against porn. There are people who are feminists who are for/against make-up, inclusion of trans women, marriage...
I'm pretty sure the PIV = rape is a small small subset. I'm unsure of how accepted porn is. I feel like there is a rather large chunk of people who react differently to stories of violence against women vs. violence against men, and while I do think that it isn't kosher to always redirect discussions on feminist issues to how men are mistreated, I think that goes both ways. The idea that because women are globally more oppressed means that the problems that men have should be ignored is ridiculous- like saying that because women have less legal protections in other countries and are treated like they are less than human, we should ignore the socialized imbalances of power in countries where legal protections are equal or nearly equal.
It shouldn't be trying to top with stories of who has it worse: something that's wrong is something that's wrong, even if something worse is happening to someone else.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 19:47:27 GMT -5
quince I'm not saying the issues men face should be ignored. They can have their own space. They don't need to take over the space when women's issues are being discussed. I love that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 19:56:46 GMT -5
Actually I had hinted at it in that one post, but Optimist reminded me I wanted to highlight it. Feminism is not just about the issues faced by women in the Western world. By comparison we have it good, which is a really scary thing to have to say when we still have issues of women being abducted as sex slaves, being more likely to live in poverty with their children etc. Around the world there are many places women have no rights, female babies in China are still at risk, schools full of young women are being kidnapped by terrorists, in some Islamic countries woman can only show their eyes...and the list goes on. There is a lot to work on in the name of Feminism.
|
|
haydentiff
Initiate Member
Joined: Sept 15, 2014 7:05:59 GMT -5
Posts: 95
|
Post by haydentiff on Feb 8, 2015 21:19:34 GMT -5
I guess feminism is the topic of the week. For one reason or another, somebody asked me to watch this video. It's long, but I thought it was pretty insightful. She talks a lot about the U.K, stating that single motherhood is a growing norm over there and that half of all babies are born to unwed mothers. She says babies born into marriages are essentially the property of the mother, not the father. She talks about reproduction being used as a power and how that turns into a financial burden on society. I didn't fact check the video and I don't necessarily agree with her, but I thought she made some good points.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2015 21:23:26 GMT -5
Actually I had hinted at it in that one post, but Optimist reminded me I wanted to highlight it. Feminism is not just about the issues faced by women in the Western world. By comparison we have it good, which is a really scary thing to have to say when we still have issues of women being abducted as sex slaves, being more likely to live in poverty with their children etc. Around the world there are many places women have no rights, female babies in China are still at risk, schools full of young women are being kidnapped by terrorists, in some Islamic countries woman can only show their eyes...and the list goes on. There is a lot to work on in the name of Feminism. ...and it suffers from the same illogic as terrorism, that is to see an injustice being committed by one group of people, and, lacking the ability to punish that group of people specifically, taking it out an entirely different group of people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 21:27:54 GMT -5
Actually I had hinted at it in that one post, but Optimist reminded me I wanted to highlight it. Feminism is not just about the issues faced by women in the Western world. By comparison we have it good, which is a really scary thing to have to say when we still have issues of women being abducted as sex slaves, being more likely to live in poverty with their children etc. Around the world there are many places women have no rights, female babies in China are still at risk, schools full of young women are being kidnapped by terrorists, in some Islamic countries woman can only show their eyes...and the list goes on. There is a lot to work on in the name of Feminism. ...and it suffers from the same illogic as terrorism, that is to see an injustice being committed by one group of people, and, lacking the ability to punish that group of people specifically, taking it out an entirely different group of people. Really? You just skipped over all the atrocities being suffered by women around the world to complain that feminists aren't nice enough to you? You couldn't even quickly acknowledge that those women are suffering more than you?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2015 21:52:06 GMT -5
Dictionaries are in the business of definitions, so I prefer to go with their definition. You've missed the point that if you fall back to the unqualified dictionary definition, you lose the argument. For the reasons I stated, PIV = rape precisely meets the definition in the minds of some feminists. We may not accept their logic, but nothing in the definition stipulates that feminism need be logical. Some feminists believe justice is served best by fighting fire with fire, and that women best restore equity by matching chauvinism with chauvinism. Ergo this too meets the generalized definition of feminism. Some feminists believe that equality is only truly achieved when women are indistinguishable from men, and that people (in particular, men) who think differently are enemies of equality and the enemies of womankind. Since their ultimate aim is the establishment of equality, they also meet the definition of feminist. Some feminists believe that guilting men for sake of the sins of their gender is conducive to bringing about equality. We can go on and on through the Wiki list of third-wave feminists and similarly tie their branches down into the root, which is your generalized definition. If we go purely by the dictionary definition, you've proved the very opposite of the exclusivist argument you're trying to make. What you've previously attempted to do is attach caveats on what constitutes genuine inequality and what constitutes appropriate ways of combating it, but these are plainly your opinions. They're not subsumed by the dictionary definition, the literature, or anything else. By this point, I think it's reasonably safe to conclude that neither you nor laterbloomer can provide justification for the authority of your many caveats, hence let's end the debate on a positive note by at least agreeing that your definition is just as correct as any other. As laterbloomer puts it, she's not going to stop calling herself a feminist simply because a mess of other doctrines fall under the umbrella of third-wave feminism, and I applaud her standing fast in defense of her ideals.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 8, 2015 22:00:31 GMT -5
Actually I had hinted at it in that one post, but Optimist reminded me I wanted to highlight it. Feminism is not just about the issues faced by women in the Western world. By comparison we have it good, which is a really scary thing to have to say when we still have issues of women being abducted as sex slaves, being more likely to live in poverty with their children etc. Around the world there are many places women have no rights, female babies in China are still at risk, schools full of young women are being kidnapped by terrorists, in some Islamic countries woman can only show their eyes...and the list goes on. There is a lot to work on in the name of Feminism. ...and it suffers from the same illogic as terrorism, that is to see an injustice being committed by one group of people, and, lacking the ability to punish that group of people specifically, taking it out an entirely different group of people. So ... if someday the Chinese decide female babies are as desireable as male babies and female infanticide no longer occurs we are punishing what group of people? Those that could have grown up without a female sibling?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2015 22:10:09 GMT -5
...and it suffers from the same illogic as terrorism, that is to see an injustice being committed by one group of people, and, lacking the ability to punish that group of people specifically, taking it out an entirely different group of people. Really? You just skipped over all the atrocities being suffered by women around the world to complain that feminists aren't nice enough to you? You couldn't even quickly acknowledge that those women are suffering more than you? I'm saying that I have no respect for the arguments of a group that doesn't bother to distinguish between the men perpetrating crimes against women and men in general. What am I supposed to take away from a rant where "men" are brutally oppressing women, "men" are treating women spitefully, "men" are raping and mutilating women, "men" have been the bane of women's existence since time immemorial, and yet I nor any of the men I know are guilty of these sins of "men"? What good is a blogger or ideologue who witnesses an injustice in Indonesia, fills herself to the full with righteous indignation, and, lacking the will/ability to do anything at all to help the women in Indonesia besides flapping her gums on a blog somewhere, generalizes her arguments to "men" and detonates in the midst of western society? Show me a feminist who actually flies over to Indonesia and does something rather than "raise awareness" like a bull in a China shop, and I'll show you a feminist I respect. Barring action, "raising awareness" is nothing but a big fat pyramid scheme.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2015 22:12:39 GMT -5
...and it suffers from the same illogic as terrorism, that is to see an injustice being committed by one group of people, and, lacking the ability to punish that group of people specifically, taking it out an entirely different group of people. So ... if someday the Chinese decide female babies are as desireable as male babies and female infanticide no longer occurs we are punishing what group of people? Those that could have grown up without a female sibling?
I'm saying that if the only thing you're willing to do about it is opine about how terrible "men" are to women, find something more productive to do. Do I look like a proponent of female infanticide to you?
|
|